The
defendant, Randy Marshall, was convicted of second degree
murder, a violation of La. R.S. 14:30.1. The defendant was
sentenced to serve the mandatory term of life imprisonment at
hard labor, without the benefit of parole, probation or
suspension of sentence. Defendant's conviction and
sentence were affirmed on appeal. State v. Marshall,
44, 121 (La.App. 2 Cir. 4/8/09), 6 So.3d 1051, writ
denied, 2009-1113 (La. 1/22/10), 25 So.3d 130.

In
April 2016, the defendant filed a motion to correct an
illegal sentence pursuant to Miller v. Alabama, 567
U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), and
Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. ___, 136 S.Ct.
718, 193 L.Ed.2d 599 (2016). In compliance with State v.
Montgomery, 2013-1163 (La. 6/28/16), 194 So.3d 606, the
trial court resentenced defendant to life imprisonment
without the benefit of probation or suspension of sentence,
but with the benefit of parole eligibility. Defendant appeals
that sentence. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS

The
record shows that in April 2005, the defendant, age 17,
conspired with his friends to commit armed robbery. After
procuring a .28-caliber revolver and a semi-automatic
handgun, defendant and his friends proceeded to a Shreveport
tire shop and ordered the group of men present to get on the
floor and put their money beside them. As the robbers
collected the money, one man, Charlie Lewis, stabbed
defendant in his ankle and side. In response, defendant shot
Lewis twice in the back, and once in the chest, shoulder, and
arm. Lewis later died from the gunshot wounds. Defendant was
arrested and charged with second degree murder.

After a
bench trial, defendant was found guilty as charged and the
trial court imposed the mandatory sentence of life
imprisonment at hard labor, without the benefit of parole,
probation or suspension of sentence. On appeal, this Court
found the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction,
that defendant's confession was freely and voluntarily
given and that he was not prejudiced by the admission of the
coroner's draft report. See State v. Marshall,
supra.

In
April 2016, defendant filed a motion to correct an illegal
sentence arguing that he was entitled to a new sentence in
light of Miller and Montgomery. He asserted
that the trial court had no authority to sentence him to
parole eligibility under the provisions of La. R.S. 14:30.1
because the statute had not been modified. Defendant also
asserted that the trial court was without authority to
sentence him to parole eligibility under La. C.Cr.P. art.
878.1 and La. R.S. 15:574.4 because those statutes did not
apply retroactively to cases such as his, where the
conviction and sentence were final prior to the decision in
Miller. Defendant urged that he should be
resentenced under the responsive verdict of manslaughter, or
granted immediate parole eligibility.

At the
hearing for resentencing in June 2016, the defendant's
appointed counsel stated the defendant understood that under
existing laws, the trial court was limited to granting him a
life sentence with eligibility for parole. The trial judge
explained to the defendant that claims for sentencing
according to the manslaughter statute had already been
considered and rejected by the courts. The trial court denied
defendant's motion and ordered that his life sentence be
modified to include the benefit of parole eligibility.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The
defendant then filed a pro se motion to reconsider sentence,
claiming that (1) his sentence was illegal because it was not
prescribed by statute; (2) his sentence violated his right to
fair notice and the prohibition against the ex post
facto application of law; and (3) his sentence should
have been imposed under the penalty for the next
lesser-included ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.